Trump, Clinton economic plans spark new debate


Which Candidate Has the Best Plan to Get the U.S. Economy Booming Again?

Cathy Lynn Taylor: Based on Hillary's answer the other evening I think the only thing is in ditch is her economic plan. And Trump has the clearest plan. The outputs are regulations and he's lived with those and understands how to reform them and understands how to create jobs which Clinton has not every done. And he understands taxes need to be lowered for economic growth. As the fundamental basic of the American economy.

John Layfield: When we are already at high tax revenue being generated it is about 19 percent GDP which is right at historic high. When President Obama became president we had about $2 trillion in tax revenue. Now $3.2 trillion. So it is 50 percent higher. Our deficit continues to grow and projected to be back at the trillion dollars within a few years. What Clinton is saying is factually inaccurate -- Hank Paulson is the one that got us out of this. Since then we're seeing 0.8 percent GDP growth. And factor in 1.1 percent inflation and 2 percent productivity we're looking at negative growth right now.

Jessica Tarlov: She wants to continue what her husband did. George Bush did and pick up on the gains Obama has made. We have 14 million new jobs. 18 million people now ensured. I know premiums are a little high but we're going to bring them down I'm not saying it is perfect. I think her answer was rambling but that doesn't mean her plan isn't clear if you look at it. Am I the only one that didn't read that Donald Trump's plan is going to add $10 trillion to the debt. He's basically giving a massive tax break to the wealthy. Which seems perfectly Trump to me but I don't know what you are all pretending is going co-come out of this is this.

Gary B. Smith: Let's take step back here. I'm not going to argue that Donald Trump has the clearest plan. In fact some of his elements. Look, he hates free trade, which is a clear economic driver. So some of his stuff is goofy. But in the macro view we know what Hillary wants to do. It is a ray for us to give our hard earned money to the government to spend as they see fit with no return out there. How many shovel ready projects have we seen the fruition. I bet you could drive around and everyone here on the panel could say zero. Yes she wants another Dwight Eisenhower. We know that government spending is inept. Corrupt, wasteful. The other laughable part is she said clearly reform our tax code so the wealthiest pay their fair share. Does she not know what we're doing now. The wealthiest don't pay their fair share. They pay more than their fair share. They paid an average tax rate of 33 percent. That is double what middle income people pay. Now Donald Trump at least wants to lower taxes. Let's read that as he wants to make government smaller. I don't see what's wrong with that. In fact if we had to look economic plan to economic plan, Trump clearly has a plan that is going to drive our growth.

Jonas Max Ferris: You can't really criticize business startup volume in the country. I won't say the dangerously incoherent criticism of Trump. It is incoherent but we don't know if it is going to be good or bad. It could be really good. There could be some good solutions. It has the potential to be really good but it is incoherent therefore we don't really know. What we do know what we're going to get with Hillary. A combination of more Obama and bill. Probably more Obama that be bill. She keeps talking about doing things that happened under Obama. She wants more middle class tax cuts. We already got the middle class tax cuts. I don't know how much lower those need to go. I've seen a lot of Obama tax policy. Predictable. Probably not positive or negative. But more predictable.

What If Violence Marred Hillary Clinton's Rallies?

Gary B. Smith: It would be above the fold and run for days and days and there would be Congressional investigations all over it. Why? As we talked about last week the mainstream media is in the tank for Hillary. I get an objective test. I get the Washington Post every morning electrically. I always go and try to mentally I guess how many articles will be either bashing Trump or the GOP. Normally I get four. I've been right more often than not. Sometimes three. Sometimes five. As an example from today. Three. The party of Lincoln is dying. What's Trump high ding by refusing to release his tax returns and this is my favorite. Don't listen to GOP leaders. The economy is not so bad. So clearly, the Washington Post, New York Times. The San Francisco paper. Denver Post, whatever. They want Hillary to win. It is a continuation of their man Obama and my gosh you are never going to read a horrible word about e-mails, Benghazi, taking donors from fat cats, anything. Because they want her to be the president.

Cathy Lynn Taylor: What's so alarming is that as media we have a responsibility not only to show the story and report it responsibly but to lead by example. And there is a fundamental lack of civility that this perpetuate when we're not showing both sides of it. And that civility is starting to let people think that anything can go in a sense of lawlessness and that is dangerous. And fundamentally really is so unfair to both candidates. It really does limit the disservice in terms of getting the message across.

Jonas Max Ferris: I think the coverage would be different if the readers of all these newspapers were different. I don't disagree with Gary's observation after little bias in the newspaper. I think the majority of newspapers have a liberal bias. These are publicly traded companies that own most of the media. They are doing this to chip the world so much to make money and that's what sells newspapers. Been that way for a hundred plus years and I think this is the coverage the audience wants to read. And they are endorsing the candidates that the readers want to endorse.

John Layfield: I think the wording would be different. If you had conservatives attacking liberals the wording would be very derogatory how you would define those guys doing the attacking. I think it is more awful bias from temperature he media than a liberal bias. I think they would rather just cover Justin Bieber than real news. And I think they screw the story.

Jessica Tarlov: They also hate Donald Trump and think that is true of many Americans whether you work in the media or not. And I think that is part of the story. What I will say is that there have been across the political spectrum pundits on TV constantly decrying the silent Hillary Clinton talked about it. Bernie Sanders has talked it. We need to make sure this doesn't happen because you do not want our officers who serve dutifully every day to protect us to feel this way and this runs into the larger Ferguson effect problem which we're not discussing right now it is a real serious concern. The police officers don't feel they can do their job. But I will also say in the defenses of the New York Times and the Washington Post look at the Clinton Foundation and the donations of her email scandal. The editorial board at the Washington Post has given her a back slap a few times about that. So it does exist. They criticize sometimes but point taken.

Nancy Pelosi Suggests the Government Created the iPhone

John Layfield: This is from a person who said they had to pass the health care bill. Her landmark legislation she doesn't know what's in there much less an iPhone. This as career politician trying to justify for existence. I think Marty Cooper had a little more to do with the mobile phone than Congress.

Cathy Lynn Taylor: Anybody hear that phone ringing because it is Nancy Pelosi's and her colleague al gore telling her to be quiet. And he's an apple board member. So ludicrous. The government's been responsible for some very extraordinary innovations but the apple iPhone is not one of them and I don't know what she's thinking. Except for as I said she's try to substantiate her -- in some way it is not clear.

Jessica Tarlov: Very kind of him. And we all appreciate it greatly. We also appreciate the funding that went into the building and which was she was talking about. I think it was a dumb thing to say. These are not good things for Democrats to be saying please stop. But she's not completely insane.

Gary B. Smith: I get what she's talking about. She's saying and we just talked about the government has put together in many cases some platforms that if you bind them together you come up with a product. I get the point I think she was talking about. But that is not on invention. An invention includes not only time and components together but the marketing. The sales of it. The positioning. Look, henry ford didn't invent the car. He didn't even invent the assembly line. But he thought about raising wages for employees. He's talked about standardization. And it was the bundling together of everything that made all of the components successful. The same way Google took the search algorithm from the government

Jonas Max Ferris: I don't think this is even close to the worst --. Actually got a lot of truth to it. And it's not just -- okay everybody knows if the government was the only one allowed to make phones they would look like a suitcase -- they own the GPS. We invented that. Forget the internet. If they said apple you can't use GPS but Samsung could because we own it the taxpayers. They would go out of business without that one technology. It is not totally --

Stock Picks

Gary B. Smith: (KO) COKE up 20 percent by 2017

John Layfield: (CSCO) CYSCO gains 20 percent in 1 year

Jonas Max Ferris: (AAL) AMERICAN AIRLINES up 20 percent in 1 year